## Facts

- James Abbott Sawyer and Rosemary Sawyer divorced in Minnesota; the Minnesota decree awarded Rosemary custody of their two children and ordered James to pay child support.
- James soon moved to California, and Rosemary registered the Minnesota child-support order in California for enforcement under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA).
- Over the following years, James had periods of residential custody of the children.
- In 2001, after a Minnesota support enforcement hearing, the Minnesota court entered a child-support arrears judgment against James for approximately $90,000 (about $89,582.15).
- Neither party challenged the Minnesota court’s 2001 arrears determination in Minnesota.
- In 2005, Rosemary registered the 2001 Minnesota arrears judgment in Santa Cruz County Superior Court for enforcement under UIFSA.
- The California court served James with notice of the registration and informed him he had a limited statutory period (20 days under the then-applicable UIFSA provisions) to contest the registration and assert defenses; James did not timely contest.
- In 2018, James received notice in California that an updated enforcement order based on the 2001 Minnesota arrears judgment had been registered for collection (in connection with child-support enforcement authorities).
- James moved to vacate the 2018 enforcement order, arguing the underlying 2001 Minnesota arrears judgment was invalid and that arrears were overstated given periods when the children lived with him and he directly supported them.
- The trial court denied James’s motion to vacate but stayed enforcement of a portion of the arrears on equitable grounds to account for the children’s time living with James; both James and the local child-support agency appealed.

## Issues

1. After a foreign child-support arrears judgment is registered in California under UIFSA and the obligor does not timely contest registration, is the obligor later barred from challenging the validity or amount of that arrears judgment in subsequent California enforcement proceedings?
2. Does UIFSA permit a California court, years after an unchallenged registration, to stay enforcement of part of the registered arrears judgment or grant equitable credits based on periods of de facto custody or direct support?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that James’s failure to timely contest the 2005 UIFSA registration confirmed the Minnesota arrears judgment by operation of law, making it binding for California enforcement.
- The court held James was precluded from later attacking the Minnesota arrears judgment’s validity or amount in California, including challenges based on jurisdictional defects or alleged overstatement of arrears.
- The court reversed the portion of the trial court’s order that stayed enforcement of a portion of the arrears on equitable grounds.
- The court remanded with directions consistent with enforcing the registered Minnesota arrears judgment as confirmed, without an equitable reduction.

## Legal Principles

- Under UIFSA, registration of an out-of-state support order or arrears judgment triggers a short, statutorily defined window to contest registration and assert specified defenses.
- If the nonregistering party does not timely contest registration, the registered order is confirmed by operation of law and becomes enforceable in the forum state.
- Once confirmation occurs, UIFSA bars later collateral challenges to the registered order’s validity or terms in the forum state, except as permitted by UIFSA’s limited procedures and time limits.
- An enforcing California court may not modify, recalculate, or partially suspend a confirmed foreign arrears judgment based on equitable considerations such as informal support, direct payments, or periods when the child lived with the obligor, where those matters would require altering the issuing state’s arrears determination.
- UIFSA’s enforcement scheme operates in tandem with federal full-faith-and-credit requirements for child-support orders, requiring the enforcing state to respect the issuing state’s determinations once properly registered and confirmed.

## Conclusion

Marriage of Sawyer holds that once Minnesota’s arrears judgment was registered in California and James did not timely contest registration, the judgment was confirmed and enforceable as registered; California courts could not later entertain James’s substantive attacks on the arrears judgment or apply equitable reductions by staying part of the arrears in a later enforcement proceeding.


Marriage of Sawyer, 57 Cal. App. 5th 724 (2020)